Rhinelander man sentenced to prison for meth-related sexual assaults

A Rhinelander man convicted of providing methamphetamine in exchange for participation in sex acts was sentenced last Wednesday to 10 years in prison to be followed by 10 years extended supervision and five years probation.

Judge Leon Stenz of Forest County imposed the sentence on defendant John L. Hildebrand at the end of an unorthodox hearing where he repeatedly questioned assistant district attorney Mary Sowinski’s position regarding the gravity of the offenses committed.

The nearly two-hour sentencing on May 22 also featured discourse about the state’s charging decision with respect to a similar case that has not yet been resolved.

In early March, Hildebrand, 58, entered no contest pleas to three counts of third-degree sexual assault, two counts of attempted third-degree sexual assault and one count of delivery of methamphetamine.

The pleas were pursuant to an agreement with the district attorney’s office.

The original criminal complaint, filed in August 2023, charged him with six felony counts of human trafficking.

According to testimony provided at earlier hearings, the investigation began after an individual who was in custody of the probation and parole department asked to speak with law enforcement regarding human trafficking. The individual reported that Hildebrand had offered various quantities of methamphetamine in exchange for sex acts. 

Other individuals also reported similar experiences with Hildebrand with respect to location and requests for sex in exchange for meth.

According to the criminal complaint, one of the alleged victims told investigators they did not want to participate in sex acts with Hildebrand but they “cared more about meth than food or water.” 

The same individual also told police they felt as they were selling their “soul” for meth.

At the outset of Wednesday’s hearing, defense attorney Brent Debord advised the court his client had decided against filing a motion to withdraw his no contest pleas but noted that he remains concerned that the charges filed in Hildebrand’s case do not fit the fact scenario. He noted that the defense wanted to resolve the case with pleas to solicitation of prostitution and noted the state chose to charge another man, Louis L. Hallock, who was investigated at the same time for similar crimes, with solicitation of prostitutes rather than human trafficking. 

However, rather than filing a motion,  Debord stated that he would incorporate his concerns into his sentencing argument. He did also concede that the state has discretion with respect to its charging decisions and is not required to offer identical plea deals to similarly situated defendants.

During the discussion, Sowinski argued that Hildebrand’s behavior was “fundamentally different” than what Hallock is alleged to have done in that Hallock is accused of providing rent or bail money in exchange for sex while Hildebrand offered “an incredibly addictive substance.” 

She also argued that Hildebrand’s actions contributed to the proliferation of methamphetamine in the community.

“He did not sit on his couch and use his methamphetamine on his own, he used it to manipulate and victimize other young (people) and continued the very addictions that he was, according to him, trying to fight. That is just horrific and inexcusable,” she argued. “He continued to make a market for methamphetamine delivery and sellers in this community for years which made methamphetamine more available to the victims to continue their addiction, making the entire community a victim of what Mr. Hildebrand did.”

The assistant district attorney, who was elected to the bench in April, recommended a sentence of 20 years incarceration to be followed by 12 years supervision.

In addition to her other arguments, she stated that it’s important that victims be assured that when they come forward with “credible and substantive claims of allegations like this” they will be taken seriously even though they may be addicted to drugs.

For his part, Debord argued that the state had “locked in to a narrative” about Hildebrand that is not accurate. He suggested the state was attempting to paint Hildebrand as a “monster” when in reality he is someone whose life has been ruined by an addiction to meth.

“He was doing some bad things. He needs to be punished for that but he also needs to be reformed,” Debord said. “He has shown in the past that he can be a good productive human being. He can be reformed and the goal of the criminal justice system should always be reform.”

When given his chance to speak, Hildebrand offered a tearful apology.

“I’m sorry for the crimes I committed,” he said, noting that he has had time to consider his behavior while sitting in jail over the last several months. “The drugs ruined me. I went down the wrong path. My behavior was reckless and I’m ashamed of how I was living my life. That behavior will never come back.”

After Hildebrand’s statement, Stenz began questioning Sowinski.

“I’m not seeing the gravity of the offense that you are that warrants a 32-year prison sentence,” he told the prosecutor.

He went on to state that the victims, particularly if they were poor, may have opted to perform sex acts rather than provide currency in exchange for their meth fix.

“The problem I’m seeing is that you have individuals who are probably poor and they’re saying ‘I can’t afford meth, I don’t need any money, I know where I can get some meth. I’ll have sex and it won’t cost me a dime...’”

“It looks to me that the victims have found a source in Mr. Hildebrand that they are able to address their addiction without (spending) any money,” he added. 

While noting that he was “playing devil’s advocate,” Stenz also stated that a message could be sent that drug addicts who provide sex rather than money in exchange for an illicit substance will be seen by the state as victims. 

Sowinski attempted to clarify her position but Stenz, a former prosecutor himself, remained skeptical. This led to an extended back and forth where the prosecutor and judge debated whether the behavior in question was “assaultive” in nature. Debord also suggested that it was unfair to consider the victims’ status as addicts but disregard Hildebrand’s status as an addict.

“Mr. Hildebrand, before his addiction, was actually useful to society,” he noted. “We submit that this was a fall into degeneracy not some sort of ‘he was born evil’ sort of thing...”

Ultimately, Stenz chose a sentence he characterized as something of a middle ground.

He noted that it was very clear that Hildebrand was a “prolific drug dealer” and that, in itself, requires significant punishment. 

“Using drugs to take advantage of some sexually is abhorrent,” he added.

“The object in this case is punishment,” he stated. “There’s also an element of rehabilitation and control, and protection of the community, if you will.”

Hildebrand will receive credit for 279 days already served.

Heather Schaefer may be reached at [email protected].